The situation is not good and that’s stating the obvious. If the killer, when taken to court, had faced people standing there and silently condemning him, there would be no challenge. The issue would have reduced to a lone fanatic pulling the trigger.
But he is being hailed as a hero by ordinary people and even professionals, like the group of lawyers who want to fight his case gratis. These lawyers were likely part of the movement to restore the chief justice and, by extension, rule of law. And yet they are celebrating murder while preparing to exploit due process in favour of a remorseless murderer.
Then we have the Barelvi clerics, under threat from the Deobandi/Salafi groups who bomb their rallies and mosques. One Barelvi cleric, Dr Tahirul Qadri, issued a fatwa last year condemning violence by al Qaeda and its affiliates. Another, Mufti Sarfaraz Naeemi, was killed last year while leading Friday prayers. The Barelvis are a liminal, inclusive denomination. Yet, they are prepared to invoke the exclusion principle to condone Salmaan Taseer’s killing even as they reject the same principle when employed by the Salafis against them and the Shias.
These contradictions are important to flag when dealing with the issue of blasphemy and the emotions it generates. The other important fact is that those condemning Salmaan Taseer’s murder are in a clear minority. It is not enough to write in an English-language newspaper and say we want this law repealed; nor is it enough to see how many times that has been tweeted and ‘liked’ and think there is a groundswell against these laws. The terrible and terrifying fact is that there is no space at this point for the minority to launch a frontal assault on the blasphemy laws. Heck, the fact is newspaper groups publish articles critical of the blasphemy laws in their English-language newspapers but they won’t in their Urdu-language ones — the Express group excepted.
Does that mean we should say plague on this house and leave? Perhaps, but that’s not the choice for me and I assume neither is it for many others. The choice I do have is to appreciate the situation and plan accordingly rather than situating the appreciation and getting routed.
Let’s then set the premise differently. Do even those who would happily kill someone for committing blasphemy want to kill someone who hasn’t or has been framed? I don’t think so. The emphasis then should be to campaign for those procedural amendments that would save someone innocent from the mischief of these laws. Not easy that; previous efforts have been frustrated. But the problem is that all such efforts have come from the moderate enclave. The moment that happens, the rightwing closes ranks and forces the moderates on the back foot.
Brick by brick has this to be built and the rightwing has to be co-opted. Look at it like this: in theory, if the Jama’at-i-Islami or the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam were to move a legislation to rectify these laws, how would the public react? Now, try getting the PPP to do it. The reactions would be totally different. Even though, in an election the PPP will do much better than all religio-political parties put together!
Let’s also not forget that societies have the right to make laws and if they want a bad law there’s not much a minority can do. In a democracy, it is even more difficult. Numbers count. That’s the bitter reality.
A good example is the hudood laws. Bad laws those, but much of the sting has gone out of them through piecemeal procedural changes. A similar strategy has to be adopted vis-a-vis the blasphemy laws. Making a splash won’t do; a silent approach is what’s required. The laws will stay but their operation needs to be rationalised — that is the short- to medium-term requirement. The irony is, only the rightwing can do it. Are we smart enough to hold our noses and co-opt the rightwing?
Published in The Express Tribune, January 10th, 2011.
COMMENTS (52)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ